World Power

[August1991]

I would definitely like to see a concerted effort to smoke out the world's dictators by economic, diplomatic and, if necessary, military means.

I don't see any US president risking the lives of US soldiers solely to bring democracy to some failed basket case of a country.

The intervention in Iraq was based on a perceived threat of Saddam to the West - through terrorists or otherwise. (Blair has made this argument many times. WMD are not the only way to be a threat to the West. Installing democracy is a nice idea but is not the motivation.)

Korea is also a very real threat, but the US has chosen to go about this differently.

Dealing with Iran is a difficult proposition. The Iranians show every indication of solving this problem themselves.

This same international law has given us nothing but a facade behind which these disgusting excuses for human beings such as Hussein, Ghaddafi, or Castro can hide.

I agree Hugo.

When the US invaded Iraq, I recall thinking that that was the end of the UN. Good riddance, too. If you think the Ottawa bureaucracy is a strange never-never land, then the UN bureaucracy is a strange never-never land on LSD.

I found absurd the debate about whether the war was "legal" or "illegal". The closest thing we have to a legitimate criminal code are the deliberations of democratic institutions in the West; the US Congress is now the UN.

[KrustyKidd]

When the US invaded Iraq, I recall thinking that that was the end of the UN. Good riddance, too. If you think the Ottawa bureaucracy is a strange never-never land, then the UN bureaucracy is a strange never-never land on LSD.

Yes, they missed the boat. A rare opportunity to show the world that they meant something and their law meant something and they waffled. If they had done their job the world would be a unified one with all knowing that breaking international law meant something. Perhaps by enforcing it's own resolutions here would eventually force Israel to obey the ones against it.

We'll never know though as every tinpot dictator knows, the UN is nothing, meaningless. At present, only two forces in the world have any power, the USA and ...... whoever it's enemies are.

And make sure you go visit Pembroke Online as well. It's a cool site with lots to offer local people and tourists alike.

[Black Dog]

Most UN inverventions seem to result in expensive failures (like Somalia) or ineffectual pretentiousness (Kosovo). UN "human rights" bodies seem more concerned with getting more abortions for American women and making sure that nobody says anything about Western homosexuals, than trying to ensure that Chinese women stop being marched into abortion clinics at gunpoint and that Islamic nations stop executing homosexuals.

"Seems" is the operative word. This sounds like another one of those canards that gets tossed around without much backing.

I would like to see a new international coalition whose members are entirely democratic. No dictatorships allowed, and no power of veto, as you suggest, since this really detracts from any idea of democracy if certain members have trump cards. The power of veto leads to greedy leaders like Chirac, Schroeder, Putin and Chretien abusing their power to maintain their lucrative contracts with evil dictators like Saddam despite the fact that Saddam is a known and self-confessed sponsor of terrorism and a violator of human rights on a biblical scale.

I don't think a exclusive club of "have" countries is the way to bring about peaceful change in the rest of the world. These are the sam epeople who are propping up the "tin pot" dictators you mention, because it's good for business. Is there any reason to think an exclusive club of democracies would behave any different? I expect the rest of the world would look at such a body as an imperialist old boys club bent on keeping the third world in its place.

The military victory itself was won speedily. Guerrilla resistance is usual, as it was in post-war Germany, or in South Vietnam and so on. Those who were devious and twisted enough to profit from an evil regime are unlikely to merely shrug their shoulders and say, "oh well, I suppose I'll just go quietly and open a grocery store or something."

[quibble]Actually there was no post-war resistance in Germany, but that reallt is beside the point.[/quibble]

I think this kind of characterization of the insurgency is not only wrong, but dangerous. It's not a single, monolithic entity, but a number highly factionalized groups (often organized along tribal lines) that includes Saddam loyalists, religious factions (like the Mutqada al-Sadr's milita), foreign mujahhadeen and nationlist elements. The problem with applying a universal identity to the insurgency is that it leads to "one solution fits all" thinking. The sheer complexity of the situation requires complex thinking.

The problem is not insurgency, as the US has the military power to stamp it out tomorrow if it wanted. The trouble, as in Vietnam, is the reaction back home.

Never mind teh domestic response: what about the response from the Arab world, the very people who need to be onside if the alleged democratic experiment is to succeed? How would images of teh U.S. bombing the bejeezus out of the very people they claim to be liberating play internationally? Nonetheless, i get your point.

The closest thing we have to a legitimate criminal code are the deliberations of democratic institutions in the West; the US Congress is now the UN.

Well, that's a scary thought.

Yes, they missed the boat. A rare opportunity to show the world that they meant something and their law meant something and they waffled. If they had done their job the world would be a unified one with all knowing that breaking international law meant something. Perhaps by enforcing it's own resolutions here would eventually force Israel to obey the ones against it

Interesting idea. Totally ignores the realities of international relations in an attempt to paint a pictuire of acorrupt and instrangient UN bent on foiling the U.S. bid to spread democracy and cute puppies the world over. Nevermind that tthe U,.S. has consistently failed to pony up millions of dollars in back dues to the UN or that the U.S. continuously vetoes resolutions against Israel, and abrogates international treaties on a whim.

If the UN, or othe rinternational body, is to function, all nations must have a equal voice. Certain members, be they the US or France or anyone else, should not operate outside the paramaters of the very laws they agreed to abide by simply because they have the power to do so.

[Hugo]

"Seems" is the operative word. This sounds like another one of those canards that gets tossed around without much backing.

Actually, I did go through the websites of a few UN-backed human-rights organisations and find that that was exactly what they were concerned with: encouraging Western nations to pass laws like Bill C-250 and getting more abortions available (in the West and the Third World) without even mentioning Islamic executions of homosexuals and forced Chinese abortions.

If you know of any projects where UN involvement has directly produced lasting and tangible success, speak up. But I think the failures are legion.

It's interesting to note that the state has existed for perhaps 5000 years, and only for the last 80 or so have we actually achieved anything close to an acceptably democratic and just state (after all, until universal suffrage no women were self-governed). It's not unreasonable to expect that building a democratic and just international community and law would be a similarly long and difficult process.

I don't think a exclusive club of "have" countries is the way to bring about peaceful change in the rest of the world.

I think it infinitely preferable to giving the tinpot dictators the keys to the system.

[quibble]Actually there was no post-war resistance in Germany, but that reallt is beside the point.[/quibble]

There were the Werewolf SS units for a start. As late as 1946 they were responsible for the murders of three American civilians in Passau. They were nowhere near as effective as French or Dutch resistance to the Nazis, but still, your statement is wrong.

The problem with applying a universal identity to the insurgency is that it leads to "one solution fits all" thinking. The sheer complexity of the situation requires complex thinking.

The problem is that in Africa and the Middle East, national divisions do not follow tribal lines but colonial lines. Often several tribes with long-running hatreds are confined within the same borders which leads to most of the civil wars and genocides in Africa, as well as events such as Saddam's persecution of the Kurds.

What is the solution? Redraw the maps? Like you say, a complex problem.

[Black Dog]

Actually, I did go through the websites of a few UN-backed human-rights organisations and find that that was exactly what they were concerned with: encouraging Western nations to pass laws like Bill C-250 and getting more abortions available (in the West and the Third World) without even mentioning Islamic executions of homosexuals and forced Chinese abortions.

Well, if the west is to maintain it's positioning as the leader in domestic human rights, then I don't see why we shouldn't push for more change. And, given teh spread of AIDS, the scourge of poverty, overpopulation, disease and war in the Thid World, I don't have a problem with abortion or sex ed.

There were the Werewolf SS units for a start. As late as 1946 they were responsible for the murders of three American civilians in Passau. They were nowhere near as effective as French or Dutch resistance to the Nazis, but still, your statement is wrong.

Three civilian deaths do not a "resistance" make. the Werewolf amounted to nothing.

There was no major campaign of sabotage. There was no destruction of water mains or energy plants worth noting. In fact, the far greater problem for the occupying forces was the misbehavior of desperate displaced persons, who accounted for much of the crime in the American zone.

German historian Golo Mann summed it up in The History of Germany Since 1789, "The [Germans'] readiness to work with the victors, to carry out their orders, to accept their advice and their help was genuine; of the resistance which the Allies had expected in the way of 'werewolf' units and nocturnal guerrilla activities, there was no sign. …"

Antony Beevor observes in The Fall of Berlin 1945, wrote: "the Allies found that Werwolf was a fiasco. Bunkers prepared for Werwolf operations had supplies for 10-15 days only and the fanaticism of the Hitler Youth members they captured had entirely disappeared. They were no more than 'frightened, unhappy youths'. Few resorted to the suicide pills which they had been given to escape the strain of interrogation and, above all, the inducement to commit treason. Many, when sent off by their controllers to prepare terrorist acts, had sneaked home.

What is the solution? Redraw the maps? Like you say, a complex problem.

Perhaps. For example, is there a reason Iraq could not exists as three or four seperate, semi-autonomous states?

[Hugo]

Well, if the west is to maintain it's positioning as the leader in domestic human rights, then I don't see why we shouldn't push for more change.

Certainly, however, when addressing problems of human rights and standards of living should the UN focus more on the West or upon the Third World?

Three civilian deaths do not a "resistance" make. the Werewolf amounted to nothing.

That was an example. The point was that no occupied nation submits absolutely. Germany was helped by the fact that all the leaders were dead or had surrendered, whereas most Iraqi leaders have gone to ground. In much the same way, Japanese occupation was facilitated by the surrender of the Emperor.

It should also be noted that warfare is really endemic in this region, and that Arabs don't have a monolithic power hierarchy as the Germans or Japanese did. The Arabs have spent their entire cultural existence fighting each other and fighting foreigners, whether it be fighting against British or Soviet occupation, the sack of Constantinople or the siege of Vienna.

It was to be expected that there would be resistance.

Perhaps. For example, is there a reason Iraq could not exists as three or four seperate, semi-autonomous states?

I don't see why not. Perhaps we should take a leaf from Woodrow Wilson's book and try national/ethnic self-determination and attempt to give each different people an actual homeland. This could be a far better deal for groups such as the Kurds or Marsh Arabs which Saddam spent so long oppressing.

[Black Dog]

Certainly, however, when addressing problems of human rights and standards of living should the UN focus more on the West or upon the Third World?

No reason they can't do both. And I skimmed the UN's main site and found lots of material on third world economic and social development and human rights. As far as the "UN-backed human-rights organisations" you mentioned, which one's? Amnesty International does yeoman's work campaigning for human rights all over the world, as does Human Rights Watch, and the International Red Cross. I think accusing any of these organizations of letting things slide in the third world is, at best, a misrepresentation.

The United Nations

Human Rights Watch

Amnesty International

Red Cross

Perhaps we should take a leaf from Woodrow Wilson's book and try national/ethnic self-determination and attempt to give each different people an actual homeland. This could be a far better deal for groups such as the Kurds or Marsh Arabs which Saddam spent so long oppressing.

Then of course you get into regional complexities, liek Turkey's (another western friend and human rights abuser) opposition to an independant Kurdisstan. But I agree: that would probably be the best deal: a group of semi-autonomous provinces in a loose confederation woul dmake a good solution.

[August1991]

Then of course you get into regional complexities, liek Turkey's (another western friend and human rights abuser) opposition to an independant Kurdistan.

Interesting thread.

Jimmy Carter tried to make "human rights" a centrepiece of US foreign policy but this was a total failure. He had to back the Shah, because of the Soviets, who then invaded Afghanistan anyway leading eventually to the Taliban and so on.

Now that the Cold War is over, US foreign policy has floundered. Maybe it needs some other objective.

Consider Turkey. It was a member of NATO (and a western friend) because of the Soviets. Who cares now? If Kurdistan can be a democratic state, respectful of neighbours, then why not? The Baltic states gained their independence and are now part of the EU. As is Slovenia. These borders are not etched in stone.

[Hugo]

I think accusing any of these organizations of letting things slide in the third world is, at best, a misrepresentation.

I asked you some time back if you had any good examples where UN involvement brought lasting success. Did you find any yet?

Human Rights Watch

Amnesty International

Red Cross

This looks like ridiculous political grandstanding to me. In all of these sites, US "atrocities" are top of the list. While these people continue to whine about one man sodomised with a broomstick they seem completely ignorant of the thousands of Tibetan Buddhists languishing in jail, the death camps in North Korea, and so on.

If they are demanding justice for the people abused in Abu Ghraib I don't understand why they are not demanding justice for the tens of thousands of men, women and children murdered on the orders of Fidel Castro. I don't know why they aren't demanding that the Vietnamese government apologise for the 1,300,000 innocent civilians it butchered, nor do I know why it is fine to let the killing fields in Cambodia go undisturbed and uninvestigated.

Maybe there is something about these crimes on these sites, buried nice and deep so that in 10 minutes of reviewing each one I was unable to find it. Regardless, you couldn't miss the anti-US dogma splashed on the homepage of each, and of all the problems of the world right now that has to be Priority #500 or so. Not to say that abusing prisoners is a good thing, but as I said, this is just another example of how stupid and myopic UN-backed organisations can be.

It's a matter of priorities. Let's say I own two cars. One makes a slight rattling noise when driven above 80. The other one has a blown head gasket, inoperable transmission, cracked engine block, leaking oil pan, dead shocks, you name it, it's broken. All other things being equal, which should I concentrate on repairing?

[Black Dog]

I asked you some time back if you had any good examples where UN involvement brought lasting success. Did you find any yet?

Haven't been looking. Cypress, maybe?

This looks like ridiculous political grandstanding to me. In all of these sites, US "atrocities" are top of the list. While these people continue to whine about one man sodomised with a broomstick they seem completely ignorant of the thousands of Tibetan Buddhists languishing in jail, the death camps in North Korea, and so on

Oh really? Could it be because the U.S. atrocities in Iraq happen to be the top story today? Why I open the newspaper and what do I see? U.S. atrocities in Iraq!

The rest is bull, too, as even a cursory glance at the main page of any of these organization's web sites wil reveal the scope of their work.

Here are the top headlines from HRW.

U.S. Presidential Rejection of Coercive Interrogations Needed

Bahrain: Pro-Democracy Activists Detained

U.S.: Systemic Abuse of Afghan Prisoners

Croatia: Progress Needed on Refugee Returns

Iraq: Reprisal Killing of Civilian is War Crime

Sudan: Government Commits ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ in Darfur       

Nigeria: Prevent Further Bloodshed in Plateau State

Amnesty:

Iraq: Civilians killed by UK Armed Forces and armed groups

Israel and the Occupied Territories: Evictions and demolitions must stop

Liberia: Fulfilling the promises of peace for 21,000 child soldiers

Thailand: Threats against human rights defenders

EU arms exports threatening global security

DR Congo/Angola: Forced repatriation leaves thousands destitute and facing human rights abuses

Sudan: Commission of Inquiry must be effective, protect witnesses and report publicly

I don't understand why they are not demanding justice for the tens of thousands of men, women and children murdered on the orders of Fidel Castro.  don't know why they aren't demanding that the Vietnamese government apologise for the 1,300,000 innocent civilians it butchered, nor do I know why it is fine to let the killing fields in Cambodia go undisturbed and uninvestigated.

Cuba

Search Camobodia

It's all there. I don't believe you actually did look, because it took me one minute to find those pages.

Regardless, you couldn't miss the anti-US dogma splashed on the homepage of each, and of all the problems of the world right now that has to be Priority #500 or so. Not to say that abusing prisoners is a good thing, but as I said, this is just another example of how stupid and myopic UN-backed organisations can be.

I think it's an example of how entrenched preconceptions die hard, even in the face of evidence. It seems you see the words "U.S. atrocities" and blank on everything else.

[Hugo]

It remains a fact that all of these are treating the US as their top priority right now, when the fact is that the worst of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib is a positive holiday camp compared to some of what is going on right now.

If they are following topical problems as you suggest, what's their use? Surely they should be trying to draw attention to the unsung atrocities, not playing the flavour-of-the-month game?

I feel that all of these organisations are being sensationalist and irresponsible, and I've seen nothing that contradicts that. Further to my original point, I don't see the UN trying to address these other problems at all. In that respect I have to reiterate that the UN is a complete failure.

[Black Dog]

If they are following topical problems as you suggest, what's their use? Surely they should be trying to draw attention to the unsung atrocities, not playing the flavour-of-the-month game?

That's not how it works, unfortunately. How long have human rights organizations been trying to call attention to abuses in Tibet, Myanmar, Uzbekitsan, Colombia, Africa and elsewhere? How much play do these campaigns get in the mainstream? They can shout this from the mountain top and it won't make a difference if no one is listening.

Therefore, it becomes necessary to use high-profile cases like the torture at Abu Gharabi to raise the organizations profile. There's no doubt that the coverage of this scandal has created an awareness of these humanitarian orgaizations and of the work they do. Hopefully, that will translate into broader support for campaigns against abuses in other parts of the world.

I'm not sure what you expect these organizations to do, Hugo. Do you expect Amnesty International to miraculously solve every humanitarian crisis, or that the Red Cross is negligent because lesser known human rights abuses aren't being trumpeted from the front of every newspaper?

These are good organizations doing good work, yet you constantlly deride them.

If only you had even a smidgen of criticism for the Donald Rumsfelds of this world, people who give lip-service to human rights and democracy while backing the worst crimes of thugs like Saddam Hussein or Suharto. They are the one's most worthy of scorn and censure, for they are the ones with the power to stop these crimes, yet do nothing.

[Hugo]

I'm not sure what you expect these organizations to do, Hugo.

I expect that the UN could stop taking my money, awarding themselves wage increases, bloating their departments and doing very little of real worth. That would be a start.

Why are UN peacekeepers not used to keep the peace? Why is it left to unilateral action to deal with international criminals like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein? Why has the UN done nothing about Castro, Chinese Communism, Pol Pot, et al?

The UN should have done something about these thugs years ago, but instead they look the other way while their member states strike lucrative deals with Saddam Hussein and abuse oil-for-food accords. Then, to add insult to injury, Kofi Annan goes on public record stating that he likes Saddam Hussein and finds him courageous and creative. I think the UN would do a lot better without an unelected, unaccountable, amoral half-wit like Annan running the show. That'd be a good start too.

As to these other organisations, they are really a side-issue. We were talking about the UN and international law, and last time I looked, Amnesty International was not international law (sadly). They do a lot of good works, this is true, which I applaud.

If there's one thing I would some international rights groups to do, it would be to stop complaining about abortion rights, homosexual rights, wage gaps and so on in the West while there are far greater problems. Nobody is being prevented from getting an abortion, homosexuals are well protected in law and being poor in the USA means you can't afford cable TV, not that you can't eat and live in a tin-roofed shack.

To be fair, I don't think Amnesty International or the Red Cross are really concerned with that. However, I don't think the UN should give time, backing or funding to groups who have this wrongheaded outlook, but unfortunately they do. I object to my tax money being used to fund such nonsensical pursuits.

[Black Dog]

I expect that the UN could stop taking my money, awarding themselves wage increases, bloating their departments and doing very little of real worth. That would be a start.

Why are UN peacekeepers not used to keep the peace? Why is it left to unilateral action to deal with international criminals like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein? Why has the UN done nothing about Castro, Chinese Communism, Pol Pot, et al?

Who runs the UN? Who has the authority to authorize military action on the UN's behalf? The Security Council. Who's on the Security Council? The same post-imperialist powers largely responsible for setting up and propping up some of the worst thugs there are. The foxes are guarding the henhouse. That's why the UN needs a profound organizational change at the uppermost levels.

If there's one thing I would some international rights groups to do, it would be to stop complaining about abortion rights, homosexual rights, wage gaps and so on in the West while there are far greater problems. Nobody is being prevented from getting an abortion, homosexuals are well protected in law and being poor in the USA means you can't afford cable TV, not that you can't eat and live in a tin-roofed shack.

So, who's to decide what issues warrant attention? Are we to decide that we are just free enough and that no more needs to be done to draw attention to the many inequalities and systematic problems that occur even in the democratic west? Is it still possible for "us" to hold ourselves up as the paragon of freedom and virtue, even when we have serious problems of our own? Who decides? Just because you feel an issue doesn't warrant attention does not make it so.

[Hugo]

So, who's to decide what issues warrant attention? Are we to decide that we are just free enough and that no more needs to be done to draw attention to the many inequalities and systematic problems that occur even in the democratic west?

Now you're just playing moral relativism, which is a very silly little game. I think we all know that the West is in a very good position regarding social, economic and governmental problems compared to the rest of the world. I'm not saying the West ain't broke so don't fix it, I'm saying the rest of the world is broke far, far worse so a so-called international organisation should fix it first.

[August1991]

Still interesting, and I don't mean to interrupt. But...

A while back, you both seemed to confuse the UN, AI and the Red Cross. There's no connection:

Amnesty International is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion...  To ensure its independence, it does not seek or accept money from governments or political parties...  Its funding depends on the contributions of its worldwide membership and fundraising activities.  Amnesty International is a democratic, self governing movement. It answers only to its own worldwide membership.

Amnesty FAQ

The ICRC is funded by contributions from the States party to the Geneva Conventions (governments); national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies; supranational organizations (such as the European Commission); and public and private sources. All funding is voluntary.

"All funding is voluntary." (Yeah, right.)

Red Cross Funding

I see a difference between these two organizations.

In the parlance, AI is an NGO. ICRC is an intergovernmental organization. I think UN personnel travel on a UN passport. The ICRC can issue travel documents - but Red Cross personnel travel under their national passport. Amnesty does none of this.

The State requires involuntary relations - and of course, States play the game with each other - the UN and the ICRC are State productions.

Game - On.

[Black Dog]

I'm not saying the West ain't broke so don't fix it, I'm saying the rest of the world is broke far, far worse so a so-called international organisation should fix it first.

I don't think of it as an either/or proposition. To me, there's no reason we can't push for change abroad while simultaneously working to correct the flaws within our own system.